Mazda3 Real World MPG

Comments

You really can tell very little from one fill up. I'm sure after 4-5 fill ups and getting used to driving the manual your avg mpg will go up and the number of fills averaged out will give you a lot better picture of where you're at mpg wise. Good luck and congrats on the new car.

Thanks, yeah I'm not too worried about the mpg for this car. Like you said only time will tell, I thought I'd just put in my 2 cents on my mpg thus far, but I'll continue to keep track of my mileage from here on out and send in updates.

Just making a note. I got 470 miles on my second tank of gas. Said I had 60 more miles left, but I filled up when the gas light came on. I can't believe I got so many miles on one tank. Of course I was used to a mustang and a montero that eats gas like crazy. Getting ready to go on another short trip. Will post mpg when I get back.

Great mileage, and my best was in flat Illinois, but it was better than yours (and in a 2007 MS3). I got a bit over 37 mpg round tip over 360 miles. Now, I was hyper-miling it for all that I could, but it did achieve the 37 mpg.

I replaced my 2007 Mazda 3 sedan with a 2012 Mazda 3 hatchback with manual transmission a couple months ago. With my 2007 Mazda 3, I would routinely achieve 36-37 mpg during late spring and summer months so I figured I should be able to beat the sticker highway rating with my new car by around 2 mpg or so in similar driving. Here are my first four fill-ups:

My last fill-up was the first that really met expectations, but a lot of that seems to be driven by an unusual number of accidents the past couple of months during the commute causing more stop-and-go driving than usual. I would describe my driving style as extremely light-footed on acceleration and the mileage mix would roughly equate to about 75/25 highway.

I have yet to do a long road trip. However, based on trip computer ratings (which seem to be optimistic by 0.5 to 1.0 mpg on average), this car should easily be able to get 45 mpg in 65 mph driving with little traffic. At the end of the day, I'm happy Mazda finally came out with the hatchback in the base engine and that I'm able to beat the mileage I was getting with the sedan.

I am somwhat schooled in hyper mile techniques, sidewall max PSI in tires,shut off the engine at long lights (you can put it in neutral and stop the engine).Maintain momentum at all costs, use very gentle accelleration, and over all just slow down.

I wanted to see what this car could do if I babied it as best I could, and compared thatto more normal (but not exactly fast) driving.

My mpg results so far (after a few weeks of experimentation):

@70mph cruise on a flat, no air - about 42 mpg, with air - about 32 mpg. If I cycled the air by hand I could get 36 mpg (50% on/off). Give it some gas (but not much) and closer to 36 mpg@70mph (no air). Slow to 65 and draft a bit (no cruise), I sustained 46+ mpg for 100 miles, didn't try with air.City with all the babying I could manage, I can average 32 mpg (no air).City (give it some gas - but not much) about 26 mpg (no air).

The highway miles were confirmed by fillup measurements,city mileage is just from the trip computer.

That is a huge decrease in MPG with the air. I wonder if the smaller engines are affected more by having the A/C on? It seems with all the V6s I've had over the years the A/C had only a very minor affect...like maybe 2 mpg or so. Even with our Mazda 4cyl I don't recall it being affected anywhere close to what you're experiencing.

Wow you saw that large of a drop with AC? I barely see any drop when I use the air. My last road trip with four people (including myself), as much luggage as you can fit into the 3 hatchback, driving 75mph constant and AC on the whole time got me 35mpg.

I normally get between 37-39mpg per tank on my weekly commute and haven't seen that AC makes any difference.

A drop of 3-5 mph when the a/c is engaged is about what I'm accustomed to seeing with my '05 Mazda 3i w/5-speed manual also.

The a/c compressor seems to consume most of the torque produced by my 3i's 2.0 L engine, especially at low rpm. If the compressor engages while I'm accelerating or climbing a hill below 2.5k rpm the feel is comparable to driving w/the emergency brake engaged or as if the car may be towing a trailer. At higher engine speeds the a/c compressor's effect is less noticeable, but I can still view the negative effect on my Scangauge II's instantaneous and average calculated mpg results. If engine rpm is below 2k my car simply falls on its knees when the a/c compressor engages.

I'd like to see Mazda and other manufacturers begin to offer a/c compressors powered electrically vs. directly by the engine (rpm dependent) like Toyota is using on its hybrid vehicles like the Prius.

I was just curious to see if Edmunds had any archived info on what the "average" real world numbers were for my model. The numbers really are all over the place. Although we are a Mazda family with the wife opting for the 2006 sporty 2.3 5 speed with 17 inch wheels, we get very similar mileage in the city. However, there is a big difference in highway driving. She has a 5 speed auto while I have the 4 speed automatic.

All my mileage is done by hand or calculator. No mileage computer on my Mazda. Over the years I averaged about 12.5 litres per 100 km or 19 US mpg/22 mpg Canadian on a tank with doing 95% city driving in the morning and and afternoon. Average speeds about 30 km/h (19 mph).

What bugs me is how the average speed attained is always missing when people are quoting their fuel consumption. On 100% highway driving I recently got ~ 9.0 litres/100 km or 26 mpg after an intake cleaning...my best so far. Average highway speed of ~ 90 km/56 mph as logged by my Garmin.

The mileage I attained and even my wife comes no where near what are the "official government" numbers. In Canada, we were not affected by the overinflated numbers you folks in the US had. But I think we were but nobody has ever challenged Transport Canada who did the ratings.

The official numbers for my Mazda3 is city: 9.1L/100 km (26 US MPG); 6.4L/100 km (37 US MPG). I personally never heard of anyone ever getting 6.4 L/100 driving this model. Clearly the numbers are skewed and overinflated by the official government agency.

In short, the Mazda3 fuel numbers have historically not been good. SkyActive is an option for many, but from what I understand at a cost of power and performance. The materials are also of a lighter nature helping making the vehicle be lighter, thereby improving fuel economy.

The point of my post? Perhaps someone who is in the market for a used Mazda3 might come across this thread and post for some info. For others, in addition what was already brought up eg. engine size, tire size, automatic or manual transmission, please post additional info like average speeds when quoting your fuel economy. It will help others get a more accurate idea of what kind of driving you really do, despite you writing 75 city/25 highway, etc.

All I can say is it must be the automatic that is resulting in your bad milage. We constantly get 6.2 l/ 100 km on our 2007 Mazda 3 hatchback with the manual at normal highway speeds (120 km/ hr). This model was as I recall rated at 6.9 l/ 100 km by the gov. We also get better than your reported results for the city ( and we have the 2.3)As for the sky active engine, it should give similar if not slightly better performance compared to your current car, with much better fuel economy.

2012 Mazda 3 Skyactive 6 auto. We have gotten some good mileage on the interstate. Recent trip from Bossier City La. to San Antonio Tx. Car delivered 38 mpg on this trip. We hit stop and go traffic on the interstate all the way from Houston to San Antonio. Really nerve wracking. We got 42mpg going to Little Rock and back to Bossier so I'm OK with highway mileage. Around Bossier with much stop and go and short trips, my wife is only getting 23 mpg. When I had my Protégé, I was getting that mileage with it around town. Only have 4000 miles on car so I hope city mpg rises some as we get more miles. Overall I really like the car. Back seat room is sparse but I knew that going in. It's good for the two of us.

PFlyer, Thanks for response. In my post I said Houston to San Antone, but I meant Austin to San Antonio. We hit Austin about 3 in the afternoon and it was gridlock all the way to SA. I think the city mpg will improve as the 3 breaks in. I only get to drive on the roadtrips. The wife is constantly on the gas and brakes alternately around town. Constructive criticism not allowed.